Jump to content

Talk:2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FFMG (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 12 October 2009 (→Stephen Gately). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

350 (organisation) & October 24, 2009

Hi. I would like to ask opinions of you folks about the following comment about my edit, removing the entry by 99.190.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), posted on my talk page.

What does "rm annual and certain "Day"" mean?
Regarding: (rm?) October 24 – International Climate Action Day, coordinated by 350 (organisation), named 350 for the level deemed be a safe upper limit in order to avoid a climate tipping point. [75] The current level, in parts per million (ppm), of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 389ppm. The pre-industrial revolution level was 278ppm. [1]; and (certain day?) October 24 – United Nations Day ? 99.155.156.28 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the entry by 99.190.91.99 stands.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I see no credible claim that the date or organization is notable. No reason for the entry to stand here or in 350 (organization). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And United Nations Day is an annual event, which shouldn't be in year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary meant 'removing event that regularly takes place on this day each year'. Recent Year articles are only for very internationally notable events that are specific to that year and have a direct link to an article on English Wikipedia. There is no International Climate Action Day article, hence that should not be mentioned on this article. United Nations Day happens on the same day each year, which makes it a similar kind of thing to Christmas Day and New Year's Day, in that they are days that are noted by many, but which certainly do not belong on articles such as this one, as they are not specific to this year. Information yes (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a separate article (other than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) reference) on the International Day of Climate Action, would you let its 24-October-2009 reference stand? 99.155.152.176 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my point of view, probably not, even if it were to survive AfD. It doesn't seem notable enough for a year article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anyone else besides Arthur Rubin? 99.52.149.42 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Arthur Rubin and Information yes. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone for keeping this event of the future? 99.190.89.139 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the others, probably not notable enough for this article FFMG (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.184.228.56 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who did? I think the replies have been fairly civil, who do you think was rude or otherwise? FFMG (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, among others: On 350 (organisation) history "(remove these "associated organizations", also)". He added "also", sounds like retribution, not contribution, after questioning whether to add 24-October-2009 as a planned event (see 350.org) for International Day of Climate Action. Then all the links from all the 350 Prominent global figures [2], associated organizations to 350 [3], and 350 Athletes [4] were deleted (which referenced the 350 (organisation) connection. Almost all the names listed were cross-listed and referenced, most linked to Wikipedia articles, and all are listed on the Wikipedia webpage's subject's webpage (see previous 350.org). References to multilingual pages were also removed oddly, as Wikipedia is a multilingual endeavor. The native language interconnectedness is truly one of the uniquely great things about Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "Be Bold" is to bring new original content into the body of knowledge. The deletions & undos (etc), if they have any explanation at all, rarely explain why, and if they do are inaccurate. The "editors" do not check to see (or more likely care) if the links they break decrease the quality of encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia. Bots appear to be doing some of the deletions (perhaps Tony Sidaway, SpikeToronto, in some examples). For myself, I am not associated with 350.org, but it does appear to be a well connected organization striving towards a laudable goal, with clear metrics (measurable) on a extremely important topic: decreasing the destruction of wealth around us. 99.27.175.60 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Also" refers to the removal of 2 other lists of loosely affiliated people or agencies (by other editors).
  2. The misplaced #Internal links and/or #See also on various people or organization's articles are inappropriate unless the connection has some relevance to the individual or organization. There is no evidence of that, except in one case which I left.
  3. Linking the number "350" to this organization is questionable at best, but I only deleted those paragraphs which were in only vaguely connected ecological articles.
  4. I had nothing to do with the references to multi-lingual pages, although I don't see any need to references pages in other languages at http://350.org .
  5. And I have not seen any evidence that 350.org is "well-connected", nor that it is anything but in favor of "the destruction of wealth around us." This last phrase has nothing to do with it's notability or suitibility for Wikipedia, so I shouldn't have commented about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV [5] Wikipedia:NPOV 99.155.148.137 (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is only required in article-space. Comments here need not be NPOV. On the other hand, as noted by multiple editors, almost all of the references in the article (at least, as of a few days ago) are either self-published (usually, by the organization), clearly not reliable, or mention the organization at most tangentially. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to VSmith and SpikeToronto for contribution attempts toward making 350 (organisation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) a better Wikipedia article. They gave me hope that the better path (than Wikipedia stagnating under the crushing weigh of a random "editor" top-heavy organisation) per Andrew Lih's book. Kudos. 99.54.137.145 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

350 (organisation) only has one Wikipedia article, which is a stub. If it were really an influential org (rather than the little-known pressure group it actually is), it would have WP articles in many languages, some of which would be long. Therefore neither it, nor any supposed action day associated with it, come anywhere near to qualifying for inclusion on any year article. The 350 article does not indicate that it has ever actually achieved any change in the environment, nor in government policy or international agreements. Endorsement by some notable people does not make the org itself important; some people will put their names to various things they don't really care about, purely in order to advance their career / profile or to improve their image by making themselves look caring and benevolent. Information yes (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ AM

I was told by an editor that DJ AM should not be included in the Deaths section because "his page is not available in more than 10 languages". First off, Adam Goldstein's death was very newsworthy. Not only was it included on the websites and newscasts of virtually all of the American news circuits, but also some international circuits. He was a very influential DJ, and I feel very strongly that he deserves one line of text on this page at the very least. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.228.81 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He should not be mentioned on this article because a) he has too few Wikipedia articles and b) he was never influential or well-known outside the United States. He is listed in the Deaths sections of 2009 in music and 2009 in the United States. Information yes (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DJ AM was hardly known outside of a small sect. Nowhee on the level of mega icons like Jackson and Fawcett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.80.148 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, Omid

Are the launches of satellites really major world events? Information yes (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial [6] In Japanese (nihongo)" http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/地球温暖化に対する懐疑論 [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.185.77 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like 350 (organisation); they deny scientific evidence that the number is, at best, +/- 50. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE Wikipedia:BITE : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.184.230.88 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a newcomer, (although I can't be sure, as you post from a rotating IP address), and your replacement of English information by Japanese language text in this English language Wikipedia is not constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite has been readded on the basis that it is the first of its kind. I don't see how that makes it internationally, historically notable. If we add things based on them being the first, last, oldest, fastest, longest, heaviest etc., then articles such as this would be filled with loads of stuff that should not be there. Information yes (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Uniqueness does not automatically equate to notability. The notability of a first occurence can only be established subsequently, assuming subsequent occurences show a pattern of notability (ie multiple environmentally related sattelites have actual global consequences). The notability (for this article) of this singular launch has yet to be established. As far as biggest, oldest etc the reasons given would also justify the removal of the Barj Dubai and Oasis of the Seas. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Are today's convictions and acquittals of those tried for terror offences in relation to the above important enough for this article, or only sufficient for 2009 in the United Kingdom? Information yes (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those convicted were sentenced today. Are the convictions and sentencing in the UK for an international conspiracy a domestic UK event or an international event? Information yes (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flight 1549

This has been readded on the basis that it was a rare occurrence and the largest number of people to survive a water landing. Even if those points are true, how is this event notable outside the United States? Information yes (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching Google News? The coverage on the European side of The Pond was massive, and I suspect the same was the case in other parts of the world. Also, though not legally binding, there are 25 non-English articles, which gives you an idea on the impact (pun not intended). Disasters (and narrow avoidance of same) are of global interest. Favonian (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The massive amount of media coverage in many countries was because it is the kind of story that the media love: 'Miracle' 'Hero saves everyone on board' etc. The large number of articles, and their length, is due to the huge amount of media coverage. Every week, events that are not really important receive a great deal of undeserved international media coverage, including the the case in Sudan where a man had sex with a goat and was subsequently forced to marry it. Such events gain their coverage because the media want to publicise it and lots of people want to read it. It doesn't make it important, nor does it mean it should be on a year article of an encyclopedia. For an event to be on this article, it should be internationally, historically important. This event does not fit that criteria. Rarity does not make something notable, nor does 'largest number of survivors'. In future years, is anyone, apart from those actually affected by the event, going to say: "I remember 2009 very well, that was the year of the Hudson plane ditching"? Are historians ever going to consider it to have been one of the major events of 2009? If this event had happened in Nigeria or China, would it be on this article? Information yes (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have tried to explain previously this entry is not internationally and historically notable. It received international media coverage because happened to occur somewhere that had an enormous amount of on-the-spot media. If it had happened in a Third World country it would have barely been noticed. As a domestic flight it is only notable in the country in which it occurred. As a rare event in aviation it is notable in aviation. Therefore it belongs in 2009 in the United States and 2009 in aviation. In terms of world history it is nothing more than a footnote and does not belong in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I also mentioned it in two separate discussion that bird strike were very common occurrences around the world, but the argument was turned around because it was successful water landing, (although it is not a first either), or something to that extent.
This particular incident was not a first, in the US or around the world, so I don't see what it needs to stay. FFMG (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it happened to be a bird strike seems irrelevant, really. Even if it happened to be a meteorite strike (which would be notable for its own reasons), that would be beside the point here. The flight is famous for the pilot, not for the geese. The point is that, until Flight 1549, no entire commercial flight had survived a water landing in 45 years. As you can see in Water_landing#Survival_rates_of_passenger_plane_water_ditchings (obviously a fairly notable concept, insofar as article space is concerned), there really have been only two precedents: Pan Am Flight 6 in 1956 (31 on board) and a Tupolev 124 flight in 1963 (52 on board). Almost half a century later, 150 people (almost twice the combined amount from the prior two flights) survive US Airways Flight 1549. In other words, the point is that this is clearly the most successful, and perhaps the most significant, water landing ever to occur. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pilot was unknown prior to this flight. That millions know his name after it is due to the media making a much bigger deal out of it than it should have been. Would that be the case if this incident had happened in rural Ghana or Ethiopia? Neither rarity, nor number of survivors, make an incident an important world event. A successful landing of a plane (in water or not) is not internationally, historically notable. It was just a media circus. This is an encyclopedia, not news - inclusion is based on actual importance, not how much attention it receives from the public or how many column inches it gains in newspapers and magazines. Are you honestly claiming that in the future, this flight will go down in the history books as one of the major world events of this year, as in '2008 known for being the year Obama won the US election', '2009 for a water landing'? Information yes (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my point about the captain. Allow me to rephrase: "The flight is famous for the pilot's active invovlement, not for the geese's accidental presence." (But, to run with what you're saying anyway, obviously that particular pilot is considerably more notable than that particular flock of birds. This incident never really was about a bird strike, and only in a secondary sense was it about the captain per se; it was primarily about all of the events that followed a bird strike.) As for the media, I know it can get out of hand--even, one could say, dangerously out of hand. But even if the ditching had happened in Ghana, in Ethiopia (which, being a landlocked country, would be a particularly newsworthy location for a water landing!), or even beside that happy couple's home in Sudan, the incident still would have been noticed, because it was basically a commercial airline crash--albeit a controlled one--and these generally receive media attention no matter where they might occur. If a zero-fatality headline would be less morbid than usual, it would also be considerably rarer than usual because, as I said earlier, that sort of thing just doesn't happen very often. And no, I'm not making any claims about the future (if I ever had a crystal ball, I must have lost it long ago, and I certainly haven't found it here); I don't know how historians a century (or even a year) from now will look back upon 2008 or 2009. As it stands, however, this is the first perfect (i.e., no-fatality) commercial ditching in 45 years, the third of all time, and the most successful (in terms of survivorship) ever. As far as international significance goes, the Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River took place in the USSR--so commercial water landings are by no means an exclusively American phenomenon. Aviation is everywhere, and incidents in one corner of the globe may have some bearing on knowledge and procedure in another corner. And, not everybody on Flight 1549 was American in the first place. Thanks to one of the passengers, the ditching made a contribution to Australian music. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A water landing could happen in Ethiopia. Though it is (since Eritrea's independence) a landlocked nation, it has rivers and lakes. Yemenia Flight 626 gained media coverage due to the high death toll; had everyone survived that crash, few people would have heard of it. The Tupolev 124 ditching did not receive much media coverage, and only has three WP articles. This ditching gained an undeservedly large amount of attention due to the large amount of local media that could film it and who could quickly alert more journalists and crew to the scene. Disasters are notable, but how is a disaster averted internationally notable? Are any other 'narrowly avoided disasters' on Year articles? Information yes (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September deaths

I don't think that Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Jack Kramer, and Willy Ronis are internationally notable enough even though they each barely pass the 9 article mark. Thoughts? --Tocino 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reddy is notable enough for 2009 in India and 2009 in politics, but is not notable enough for this article. He was never of any relevance to any country other than India. Kramer won Wimbledon, which makes him notable outside the United States; he should be here, as well as on 2009 in sports and 2009 in the United States. Ronis was not notable outside France; he should be on 2009 in France but not here. Information yes (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Reddy should be excluded. Kramer should stay as per the reason Information yes gave. Ronis should also stay as his work was prominent throughout Europe, I live in the UK but i knew who he was before he died. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude Reddy, not notable outside India. Include Kramer, multiple Grand Slam winner. Exclude (just) Ronis. Seems to have some international notability but probably insufficient for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really explained in your post why he is "just" insignificant DerbyCountyinNZ. The fact that he's insignificant to you doesn't make him insignificant to the entire English-speaking world.--Jkaharper (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ronis' article does not show significant enough notability outside France. Anyone who believes he did have substantial influence etc. in other countries, they need to assert that, with references, on his article. Details of work he did outside France would help to show he could fit the criteria for inclusion in this article. Information yes (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Ronis' work was prominent throughout Europe, state that on his article. Information yes (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Almeida Bosque

His article does not show any notablilty outside Cuba. He should be moved to 2009 in politics, unless someone can show substantial international notablity. Information yes (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His article shows notability outside Cuba in the very first sentence. He was one of the leaders of the Cuban Revolution, which was of international interest from the very beginning, and which had some interesting international consequences. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if Almeida played a part in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Information yes (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carroll

Author Jim Carroll should be added.

Carroll now has enough articles, having achieved the minimum number posthumously. The article does not show any international notability, which is a necessary criterium for inclusion here. He is on 2009 in the United States. Should he be on 2009 in literature and 2009 in music? Information yes (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bongiorno

He does not appear, from his article, to be notable outside Italy. Information yes (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Travers

Mary Tavers needs to be added. Peter, Paul and Mary were massively successful and popular in the 60's.

Was Mary Travers ever well known in many countries? If so, why does she have so few Wikipedia articles? She is on 2009 in music and 2009 in the United States. Information yes (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At her death she failed to meet the WP:RY criteria for inclusion (9 non-English articles) and was removed from the Deaths section. She now has more than 9 non-English articles which would appear to satisfy the criteria (the argument that has been used to add her in again). However, several of those articles are extremely minimal stubs with no references at all. As such I would contend that she is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC
I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ. Just adding stubs to satisfy criteria does not make her notable. ttonyb (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But stuff like this does: "Their version of If I Had a Hammer became an anthem for racial equality, as did Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind, which they performed at the August 1963 March on Washington. Puff, the Magic Dragon is so well-known that it has entered American and British pop culture." (from her article). And so does having had "international hits" [8] [9]. Helping to propel John Denver to his own "international acclaim" [10] can't hurt. True, all of those links are about the trio as a whole. But when her death is "top news" [11] all the way in India, she very well might have been an important one-third of that internationally successful trio (or, as they say in Australia, [12] "one of folk music's most popular acts"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Travers' articles were created after her death. She does not have much individual notablity, unless she was the main / sole composer of songs performed by her group which were international hits. The large majority of people do not recognise her name. If you were telling someone who she was, you would usually have to say "she was Mary from Peter, Paul and Mary", as 'Mary Travers' would be met with a blank expression. PP&M are internationally notable, but her article does not show that she is. If she is, please expand her article to show that to be the case. Information yes (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshito Usui

Whilst he has enough articles, his stub does not show international notablity. Information yes (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the WP:RY#Deaths criteria but prior to his death his article was barely a stub:

Yoshito Usui (臼井儀人, Usui Yoshito?, born 21 April 1958 in Shizuoka Prefecture) is a Japanese manga artist known for being the author of the popular Japanese manga Crayon Shin-chan.

Plus a short list of his works.

Most of his articles in other languages are of a similar size, even after his death, and most have no citations. This would seem to indicate that he is not particularly notable, and certainly insufficiently notable for this article. Yet another case of a person whose unusual/unexpected death is more notable than they themselves are/were. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authors of mangas, animations, and/or cartoons does not necessarily have to make themselves known, but their opus. (for example, even though Dragon Ball has been watched and distributed worldwide, I do not think many people know the face of Akira Toriyama, the author.) Although his face itself is not well known even his native country, his opus, Crayon Shin-chan, has been broadcasted internationally, and it has articles in 20 different languages.--Belle Equipe (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noordin Mohammad Top

He now has enough articles. He was a high-ranking member of an international terrorist group, and was wanted by the FBI. I believe that makes him notable enough to be included. Information yes (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of those listed in this section I would exclude Reddy, Ronis, Carroll, Bongiorno, Travers and Usui as they (still) do not seem to be sufficiently internationally notable for this article. Include Bosque and Top as thier articles reflect sufficent international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Atkins

She is not notable outside the United States. Information yes (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Manson Family murders are internationally notable but I doubt too many people outside the US would have had any idea who Susan Atkins is/was until her death made the news. Even most people in the US would probably not have heard of her until her release from prison. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the murders being internationally notable makes everyone involved internationally notable. Since being convicted, Atkins received very little media coverage until she was diagnosed with brain cancer. Her death has received little media coverage outside the US. When people outside the US think about the Manson murders, it is Manson himself, and the most well-known victim, Sharon Tate, who come to mind. Most people outside the US either cannot remember her or have never heard of her in the first place. She was never released from prison after being incarcerated for her part in the murders; her requests to be released were refused due to the severity of her crimes; she died there. Information yes (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put her notability in mathematical terms, I would suggest the following formula: A (the puppet master) + B (some string) + C (the puppet) = D (the show, i.e., the only reason people have ever heard of her). If the consensus is, as I take it, that people shouldn't be included unless they've notably--and clearly--done something of their own volition, then Puppet Master Manson would be included if he were to die; but in this case, A + B + C doesn't really seem to equal inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about, E=Victims, F=The media, G=The public, H=The parents, I=whatever will make the formula balance, ... and so on.
I don't think we should oversimplify such a critical mathematical formula when talking about the death of people and improving this article. FFMG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I was oversimplifying. If I'd said a little more, I could've run into one problem, and if I'd said a whole lot more, I might've run into an even bigger one. But my point was...well, the same as everybody else's, i.e., Atkins (much like the supercentenarians) is such a multifactorial case that she doesn't seem to have the "independent" sort of notability that other entries have, and which seems to be preferred by earlier consensus here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Manson was well known because of the Murders, Susan Atkins was not known. Personally I doubt many, (inside our outside the US), even knew who she was. Even Sharon Tate is probably unknown to most, (but, if at all, she is probably better known than Susan). FFMG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and remove her. The consensus seems pretty clear and unanimous. I'll WP:1RR if anybody disagrees with me, but so far I don't see anybody advocating her inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Kristol

He has enough articles. Is he sufficiently internationally notable to be included? Information yes (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His english article seems to indicate no notability outside the US (only 1 non-US link which is from the UK) but most of the foreign language articles seem to include a local reference. I'd probably go for a weak exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Popovich

Is he notable outside his native Ukraine / (prior to Ukraine's independence) USSR? Information yes (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 non-English articles would seem to indicate that he was. Several of these are of course only stubs but many seem to have at least one reference in the local language. I think this indicates sufficient notability for him to remain in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed McMahon

Johnny stole the spotlight in life and Farrah and Michael in death...but really I think Ed McMahon deserves a bow here (June 23). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.199.187 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2009/Archive_3. Per policy, he is not eligible for inclusion because he does not have enough Wikipedia articles and is almost unheard of outside the United States. He is on 2009 in the United States, 2009 in American television and Deaths in 2009. Information yes (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is essentially run by three editors, who claim to speak for the entire planet. Although Ed McMahon is well-known outside of the United States, these three editors don't agree. As such, no reasonable discussion can be held. The only way to get someone listed is to violate Wikipedia rules by putting it to a vote. However, if an effort is made to contact knowledgeable editors in a neutral manner, you will be accused of canvassing. At that point, one or more of the three editors will post angry messages to talk pages telling people that they must come and vote to exclude people from being listed. Ultimately, if the result is to list someone, they will complain bitterly and claim that the "consensus" (vote) was flawed and invalid. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technical point: WP:RY is actually a guideline, not a policy. In practice, the difference rarely matters (except where a policy and a guideline seem to conflict with one another), but the word "policy" carries an authoritative tone, and this might not come across to the WP:NOOBs as the most welcoming kind of tone. My point is subtle, and I'm not trying to say that anyone has done anything horribly wrong; I'm just throwing in my two cents' worth, in an effort to keep things moving along a de-escalatory path. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were at least 5 editors instrumental in developing the guidelines requiring 10 non-English language articles and some evidence of international notability. Neither is present in regard McMahon, although I think he's more notable than many of those listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone claiming that McMahon was ever well-known outside the US should at least name which countries they believe he was known in and / or show some evidence. In any country other than the US, it would be difficult to find people (other than American expatriates and dead pool devotees) who have even heard of him. Which people currently listed on this article does anyone believe are less notable than McMahon? Information yes (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is certainly a country outside of the US. Of the 11,500 sources from Canada, a quick sampling shows a retrospective on his life in the Toronto Star, a Canadian Broadcasting Company story about him getting sued, a story from theCTV Television Network about the sale of his house, and, of course, a story from the Vancouver Sun about his death. The list goes on and on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is being known in two countries (US and Canada) sufficient for inclusion? Information yes (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way! Definitely not sufficient. --Belle Equipe (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. In particular 2 neighbouring countries speaking the same language can hardly be an indication of notability sufficient for in a year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since we've played a game of "moving goalposts" with you two. I was starting to worry about you when you hadn't been around to make sure nobody had the nerve to edit your page in a while. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - McMahon fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Recent years – this has been discussed a length. What has changed? ttonyb (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If McMahon had a wide audience even in just the US, then there would be more WP articles than there actually are. He can't be popular or well-known among Hispanic Americans, as there is no Spanish article. It looks like he was never a major star. Information yes (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you ever get tired of being clueless? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, lets play nice now.--WillC 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baitullah Mehsud

He has enough articles; is he notable enough to be included? He was a high-ranking member of the Taliban, which is certainly an internationally notable organisation with considerable international effect. It looks like all his militant activities were in Pakistan, but he was killed by the U.S. Information yes (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Dragon

How is this internationally notable enough to be present? It is in the Unknown dates subsection at the end of the Events section. Information yes (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If and when it becomes the next regular space vehicle it would probably deserve inclusion. At present the information on a possible launch date is so vague it should probably be removed from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

There is currently no picture for April Deaths. As Beatrice Arthur is the most well-known of all the people who died that month, I believe her pic should be there. Information yes (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the July pic should be Bobby Robson rather than Walter Cronkite, as Robson is known in more countries than Cronkite, and three of the Death section pics are of Americans. Information yes (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai

This is currently in Predicted and scheduled events under September. It is now due to be completed and opened in December, hence it should not be in its current position on this article. Should it be moved to December, or should it be removed from the article altogether due to lack of international notablity? Information yes (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed altogether. Along with the Oasis of the Seas I don't think the tallest, biggest, oldest "ever" should be in year events (unless they are subsequently deemed iconic eg Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Births

As per Talk:2008/Archive 2#Should births be dealt with this way? I have removed the births as they don't meet the agreed criteria (ie 9 non-English articles). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Mikhalkov

His English WP article does not show him to have notabilty outside Russia. Information yes (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26 non-English articles would suggest some international notability, although I haven't checked the articles for quality. I suspect this is a case of a poorly developed English article rather than actual non-notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death-section comments

Largely in order to reduce reactance, I've reworded the invisible comments in the deaths section. This much is obvious from the article history, and shouldn't (I think) be controversial. But I should note that I've removed the part about Simple English not counting as one of the nine non-English articles. I'm not actually challenging the exception, but my reasoning is as follows: First, that was a classic bag of WP:BEANS. And second, it's not going to matter for most good-faith editors in the first place. Anybody who tries to argue that simple English is not English either is quite misguided or is simply having too much fun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new wording is an improvement on the previous. Before the minimum number of articles criteria was introduced, the Death sections of recent Year articles contained many people who are notable in only one country; many such people are still in those sections of 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 etc., despite the fact that the inclusion criteria for Deaths is retrospective. Information yes (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Oasis of the Seas

Is there any more to its notability than being the biggest? If not, how can its inclusion be justified? Information yes (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with "the oldest peson" and "the last survivor" being "the biggest ship" or "the tallest building" is really only an incidental/transient notability and is insufficient for a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars

I believe the calendars for September and October should be added to the Events section; could someone please add them? Information yes (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Additionally, these months now have their own sections (October currently straddles the infinitesimal dividing line between past and future, whatever word you choose to call that . . . currently). This is for landing the redirects that will shortly be switched over to November 2009 and December 2009 pages in their own right (but not a moment sooner).
---Schweiwikist (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoichi Nakagawa

Is he of sufficient notability outside Japan to warrant being included? Information yes (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gately

I noticed that Stephen Gately has been added to the list of deaths. Though on the day he died, which was the 10 of October 2009, he did not have the ammount of non-English language Wikipedia articles that he currently has. He had fewer than 9. Maybe around 4 or 5. I've checked some of these articles and noticed that the new articles were all created on the 11th of October 2009, the day after Stephen Gately died. I assume someone did this just so Stephen Gately could qualify for the 2009 death list.

I don't think he should qualifiy for the main 2009 death list as he wasn't well known worldwide on his own. - User: Cool King, 12 October, 2009, 16:00 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool King (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree, some of the articles are stubs created soon after his death.
At the time of his death he only had 4 articles, (de, pl, fi, nl), and While one could argue that Boyzone is well known, I am not sure if he, himself, qualifies for inclusion here. FFMG (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009&oldid=319463081"